Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!69.80.99.27.MISMATCH!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2024 18:32:56 +0000
From: BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Inconvenient lefties
References: <utks3h$35980$1@dont-email.me> <17c37b6c29057425$4757$3037545$10d55a65@news.newsdemon.com> <25Ccnb-dnerIwo37nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> <17c3845f233a098e$3282$2820980$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com> <0B2dnfnk4IawGI37nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com> <17c3b829d977a4bb$361$1351842$40d50a60@news.newsdemon.com>
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X)
Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2024 11:41:16 -0700
Message-ID: <atropos-A4D504.11411606042024@kd014101080069.ppp-bb.dion.ne.jp>
Lines: 28
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-lgBDKDEW/ytaZYDZgZrU0lZ6KrvGnI54eTG4Dg2sA6hWZ4bQyYH2U/knhpiOdJ3Z/qtoWF/2ipWb8BB!2z3f4ssqT+2xfc3JoY9JhvrI2S1nTOXfMqnV1QPZm5WkBdfugYUWZDVVuNsEwsHaTK84l7CoYK9Q!iDQZy7tMo4JcFShr5C5Q1D4=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 2723

In article <17c3b829d977a4bb$361$1351842$40d50a60@news.newsdemon.com>,
 moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:

> On 4/5/2024 7:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > On Apr 5, 2024 at 3:57:07 PM PDT, "moviePig" <never@nothere.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> On 4/5/2024 4:30 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>   moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:

> >>>> What *opinion* -- of anything anywhere -- can't be contradicted?  Fyi,
> >>>> *that* would be a violation of 'free speech'...
> >>>   
> >>> No one's muzzling or prohibiting you from making contradictory 
> >>> statements regarding the SCOTUS ruling. However, your right to free
> >>> speech doesn't immunize you from being wrong or bar others from pointing
> >>> out your wrongness.
> >>
> >> ...where "wrongness" means "of differing opinion".
> > 
> > You can have an opinion that SCOTUS decided wrongly and wish it had made a
> > different ruling but you can't have an opinion that the law is other than 
> > it is.
> 
> The 'law' is what SCOTUS has opinions about. I can have *my* opinion 
> about either or both. Therein, the only "wrong" would be a misquoting.

No, the law is what it is and it's not what you claim. You can have your 
own opinions but you can't have your own facts.